Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Personally, I'm pretty much against the lowering of the voting age. When I was at school I didn't know anything and neither did my friends, although some of them called themselves socialists cos it was fahsionable.

However, mostly my complaint is not about who has the vote, but whether that vote is worth having. Invariably politicians tinker with voting ages cos there is something else wrong with the system.

In the uk, the number of people who vote decreases with each election. Politicians state that this is because of "apathy" when it is quite blatantly because there is no point voting. Fully 2/3 of constituences will not change hands...ever. They haven't in a century and probably won't for another. So anybody who has alternate views in those areas is disenfranchised.

In the other places, parties have become so good at appealing to swing voters, those who can be persuaded by smart blandishments that now parties tailor their stated policies to appeal to somewhat less than 30,000 people spread across 150 consituencies. the other 60 million of us don't matter cos our vote is already bartered.

So why vote ?? They might as well name the 30,000 and leave the rest of us out. Don't change the voting age, change what the vote means. Give us a new voting system that means all votes mean something. then they might see voting figures increase, and the public will notice that politicians might start standing for a principle or two instead of cheap advantage.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Sep 29th, 2008 at 01:50:41 PM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series